Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference -- 04 Nov 2014

<trackbot> Date: 04 November 2014

<scribe> scribe: timeless

review open action items

issues

issue-140?

<trackbot> issue-140 -- The description of the Team in Section 2.2 of the process document is out of date -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/140

ISSUE-140: The description of the Team in Section 2.2 of the process document is out of date

SteveZ: we seem to have consensus that it only needs to identify people that are listed in the document
... we still have an open issue about whether the term W3C should be defined in the document
... after thinking about it, i don't think it belongs in the team section
... i think it belongs in 2.0, or 2.0.5
... where it defines W3C/points to a definition
... since it's a somewhat special status, it'd be good to be clear about what W3C refers to

jeff: i think it should be somewhere
... i'm still confused
... as to whether the section numbers will stay the same
... we talked about 3 different documents
... not sure if we're doing that anymore
... we talked about at the AB meeting
... about a document w/ 2 parts
... technical, and overall
... as to 2.0, 2.0.5, or where it currently is
... not sure until we talk about overall structure

chaals: i can live w/ saying "W3C ..."
... but i'm not clear on what you want to say

SteveZ: it currently says "W3C is not currently incorporated for legal contracts
... it is currently composed of 3 hosts
... the hosts are governed by joint contracts
... hosts aren't members"

chaals: it isn't normative
... it's incorrect, as there's a 4th host
... the other w3c hosts do appear to be members

SteveZ: i don't know if they are or not

chaals: they have AC reps

SteveZ: MIT doesn't
... X does

jeff: Inria isn't the host, it's Ersum

SteveZ: Inria is a member
... Keio is host, is member ??

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to get a clarification about delegations/Ersum/ERCIM/ and to get a clarification about delegations

SteveZ: is there a reasonable place for the Process document to point to a definition of W3C?

chaals: where we have that information now is the obvious place to be
... there's just lots of it that doesn't need to be there

SteveZ: there reason i was looking to point to something else
... we shouldn't have to update the Process document when the structure of W3C which is outside the control of the Process/AC changes
... I was looking for a place to point Outside the document that we could point to

chaals: minimize the information, don't name hosts
... don't mention not part of AC
... leave it where it is

jeff: i would not mind evaluating a specific textual proposal
... i'm not sure that i know how to piece together the current language w/ chaals 's suggestion
... but i'm not wedded to the current language

chaals: "w3c is not a legal entity, but represented by hosts" would be added to my previous proposal
... i'll make a proposal along those lines

jeff: ok

SteveZ: i think that's as much as we can do about this one
... does anyone object to removing the partial list of director's responsibilities

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to get a clarification about delegations

jeff: i don't object per se
... i think we should verify that this is listed elsewhere
... if we want this to be viewed as editorial rather than substantive, we should be sure it's listed elsewhere
... * lead Technical Architect of W3C
... * responsible for Consensus
... * responsible for Activities

chaals: we did this the list the week before TPAC

SteveZ: I believe that XXX is the only one not listed elsewhere

jeff: we had a debate on Chair of TAG
... chaals raised it on the list
... i pointed out that it was true
... i don't object to removing things, as long as they aren't substantive/or are covered elsewhere
... the other point i want to make is
... "individuals may delegate"

chaals: it isn't on the chopping block

<Zakim> timeless, you wanted to ask that delegation be clarified/expanded

SteveZ: chaals you'll make an updated proposal

timeless: AC Reps don't know all the things they can do, possibly including delegating being AC rep

<SteveZ> Exhaustive list of Director's responsibilities: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Oct/0181.html

timeless: it'd be useful to highlight some things, including Chairing meetings

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to ask whether AC rep delegation is new or existing

jeff: for some purposes, including attending AC meetings twice a year, routinely that's done by delegation
... if they aren't formally permitted to delegate, that'd be a substantive change
... and given the role of AC in pulling together Patent commitments
... i'm not opposed to making that change, but we should make AC aware of this change, if it's indeed a change

SteveZ: i think what AC rep can't delegate is being the email contact

timeless: "AC reps may delegate everything except being the email contact"

SteveZ: i was looking at the text, it says each Member shall send one representative to each AC meeting
... i agree it's unclear
... jeff, your point is that we shouldn't make such a change w/o getting AC input

jeff: you made my point better
... if there are parts that can't be delegated, we shouldn't make changes to that

SteveZ: that's the one i'd suspect Ian would say can't be delegated
... we need an official respondent
... I'll try to open an issue on this

issue-141?

<trackbot> issue-141 -- Improve Errata management in W3C -- open

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/141

ISSUE-141: Improve Errata management in W3C

SteveZ: i sent out proposed text over the weekend
... i don't know if people have had a chance to look at the text that i sent out

<SteveZ> Proposed replacement text for section 7.7.1 was sent: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-w3process/2014Nov/0004.html

<jeff> +1 to Steve's text.

<chaals> [-1 to the proposal]

timeless: i replied to that identifying a typographical error

chaals: the proposal adds a lot of stuff
... i'm not sure they're done right

> A Working Group should keep their Recommendations up-to-date

chaals: yes, maybe, but that's not the same as having errata

> Recommendation may be edited to allow a viewer to selectively display

chaals: that's beyond Process into Pub-Rules and others
... I think you could do something simpler "WG must track errata"
... "each REC must link to information about errata"

SteveZ: i don't want to link to it
... that's the reason for the proposal
... the reason it's overly elaborate, i agree
... is to allow the errata to be inplace
... instead of a link to it

chaals: for some version of "in-place", i'd be happy w/ that
... but what you're doing enforced behavior that i'm not convinced is necessary/desirable
... on that basis, the proposal isn't something that i support
... the same way that things have Patent Protection

SteveZ: the changes we're talking about are legitimate maintenance items and per the FAQ do have Patent Protection
... covered by "set of allowed changes"

> any error that can be resolved by one or more changes in classes 1-3 of section 7.2.5 Classes of Changes.

chaals: Class 3 is not in

SteveZ: it is, per the FAQ

chaals: Changes to conformance
... if you can prove to me that Class 3 do not provide Patent changes

SteveZ: i promised Scott Peterson (Co-chair of PSIG) that i'd provide concrete text for PSIG to review
... you can raise it there

chaals: i'm raising it here

SteveZ: i'm copying from the FAQ which asserts the commitment does hold
... if PSIG wants to change the FAQ then we can make this match it

timeless: can we point to the FAQ in the document?

chaals: the FAQ is a non-normative statement
... it's an opinion about a document, and the members are under no binding commitment to those opinions

SteveZ: fair enough
... i still think we should send this to PSIG and ask
... i don't know how to any-better-state it than the FAQ
... we asked for the clarification a year and a half ago in my original letter to Scott
... on maintenance and that was the opinion they came back with
... as long as it didn't introduce new features, then the Patent commitments applied
... i understand your example
... i mentioned it in our discussion at the PSIG
... chaals, you're concerned about people seeing a document that doesn't have Patent Protection
... per FAQ #37, I asserted that it did have Patent Protection
... would that change your opinion if the PSIG says that Patent Protection applies
... would you still object to in-place changes?

chaals: i'm not sure

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to ask another question about patent commitments

jeff: there are two states of the Errata we're introducing to the inline document
... 1. Errata is not at wide-review,
... first question: do Patent Commitments apply then?
... 2. At some point, we want the Errata to be brought to REC, by wide-review
... when Errata are brought to REC, there's no question
... chaals 's question is time limited to the first state
... further, that text is clearly marked, so
... what chaals is not sure about is clearly marked text for limited amounts of time
... in most cases, it's unlikely there's a Patent on that text
... since it's Errata
... my theory is that we could say chaals 's concerns, even if accurate maps to a corner case in terms of real concerns
... in terms of moving forward w/ SteveZ 's proposal

timeless: Some docs may never get from point-1 to point-2. Should the process do more to encourage more rapid-transitions?

chaals: there's text after this section which says you may move to REC

jeff: we're trying to not let perfect be the end of good enough
... i'm not concerned w/ one-off documents
... my concern is w/ documents in Living Document spaces
... such as html

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to address timeless' question

jeff: if we have HTML5 errata
... it may be that we never go through the exercise of HTML5+Errata and bring that to REC
... but someone doing HTML5.1 and the Errata text will show up native (normatively?) in the 5.1 document
... and for practical purposes, that will get the Patent Commitment

chaals: in that situation, we've solved that problem better, than Errata, we have a new draft
... you just point to the new draft

jeff: if we're successful in doing that, and we do it every year, then you're probably right
... but we haven't proved that once in a row
... it may come out a year from now
... as chairs like
... or it may come out two or three years later
... for CSS, modules don't necessarily come out every year
... if we rely only on the next dot-release, we'd be very much out of date
... relying on Errata, or that dot-release w/ errata,
... i think that's a good balance of trade-offs

SteveZ: the other point made to me, by other people
... is that they don't see the next draft because it has other things than Errata
... as a good place to highlight Errata changes
... people would really like to see the previous drafts w/ Errata inline/flip back+forth
... we have the technology for that

chaals: Errata are constrained as the first 2 sentences of 7.7.2 assumes
... simple process of making that happen
... not sure which problem we're addressing
... either there are technical changes, in which case you want to see the technical changes
... or there aren't
... in which case, i'm surprised that anyone would spend time on getting punctuation right
... i don't think we're solving a real problem

SteveZ: other people do think we're solving a real problem
... they'd like the people who pick up the draft to ideally see the most up-to-date text
... because people are still using /TR/ to get the page
... things one link off, an updated-draft, or an errata page are not as good solutions as giving the most up-to-date information
... that's the argument

chaals: i disagree

SteveZ: i'm at a loss as to how to resolve this disagreement
... i think it will probably stay there
... that's why i was hoping to let the process enable experiments
... do you feel so strongly that you wouldn't like to enable in-line updates?

chaals: i think the process can enable inline updates
... i feel we shouldn't be nickel-and-dimed into a so-called "living standard" model by accident
... and the ways you can represent things in a rec

timeless: could we call our document its own errata

chaals: if i looked at an Errata page that looked like a Spec
... in what way would that not meet the requirement?

jeff: we need to back up to what the problem is
... i understand that chaals is skeptical of the solution
... i think it would be best to determine the problem
... this wasn't raised by outsiders
... it was raised by me
... because i've had several important members share with me that when they want to know what's in HTML5
... they don't look at our document, because our document is out-of-date
... because in their perspective, that document is up-to-date
... i think it's important that we be responsive not just to the wider community, but also to our members
... there may be tricks, like timeless 's idea
... but, the reality is,
... the behavior of our groups is not following that trick

SteveZ: from a practical perspective, i need text to send to PSIG
... is it good enough to use to send to them
... or, do we need new text?

chaals: i'll take an action item to suggest text for this issue

Next Week?

jeff: are we meeting on Veterans Day?

SteveZ: it had never occurred not to meet

<chaals> ACTION: chaals to propose a resolution for issue 141 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/11/04-w3process-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-38 - Propose a resolution for issue 141 [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2014-11-11].

[ So, yes, we'll meet ]

SteveZ: jay points out that this is now a midnight call

Voting

jeff: i don't think your agenda mentioned voting
... there has been some progress on Voting
... to at least grandfather in TAG people

SteveZ: DSinger asked DKA to do a CfC
... i could send out a CfC on my text
... if we're going to get consensus, we should get consensus of exact text
... i don't want to have a vague thing
... wording triggers more responses than the general statement
... i can send the message to DKA about sending out the CfC
... i'm following it
... i didn't put it on today's discussion because i thought it was waiting for the CfC

Time Zones

Jay: if the conference moves one hour forward (to 11pm), i'd be happy

SteveZ: we could move to a 7am Japan call
... which makes the call late in Europe
... ~6pm

jeff: it's nearly midnight in Europe

SteveZ: i'll do that offline
... thanks all

[ Adjourned ]

trackbot, end meeting

- DRAFT -

Revising W3C Process Community Group Teleconference

04 Nov 2014

Attendees

Contents